GetReligion.org - GetReligion » “The press . . . just doesn’t get religion.” — William Schneider
member of beliefnet's blogheaven

Recent Posts

Bishops threaten lawsuit over HHS mandate | 5Q+1: How Kate Shellnutt’s technophilia meshes with religion | New York Times scoop! Catholic same-sex unions! | Ghost at Catholic girls school | About that nuns on the Internet story | Hey media: people’s ‘pinterests’ are fading | Mitt Romney addresses “people of different faiths” | Covering the same-sex marriage effect on voters | How many reporters need to cover one story? | Pod people: Colorado Presbys and abuse in Ireland | 2012 Archive >


Thursday, December 11, 2008
Posted by tmatt
Share

DKMZY SANTA JAWS 1Tell me, you dedicated readers of religion news, can you imagine anything worse than seeing the following pairs of words in the same story — “Fred Phelps” and “Christmas wars.”

Actually, a “Christmas wars” link is merely implied in the mess that is getting started — probably — at the state capitol in Washington state.

What? You haven’t heard? Here’s the news, care of the Spokesman-Review:

OLYMPIA — The emotional saga over religious displays at Washington’s state Capitol grew more bizarre Wednesday, as a controversial Kansas group requested permission to put up a sign titled “Santa Claus Will Take You to Hell.”

The Westboro Baptist Church, which spreads its virulently anti-gay message by demonstrating at funerals and high-profile events, wants the sign posted near a Nativity scene and atheist sign at the Capitol. The sign claims that “God’s hate” is to blame for the weak economy, that Santa is a child molester, and that the deaths of U.S. troops are somehow the fault of Santa.

“Holy cow,” said Steve Valandra, a spokesman for Washington’s Department of General Administration, when e-mailed the text. “I guess we’ll consider it like all the other requests.”

No, believe it or not, there are no signs — yet — of prejudice against St. Nicholas (the ancient Christian saint from Myra) in this story. It may take time for Phelps and family to find that angle.

So what, you ask, is the actual news story that is buried under this stuff?

That’s where the “Christmas wars” roots show up. You see, this is another equal access story.

Once the state decides that its job is to sponsor forums about religious diversity, this is where things end up. Just for the record, I wish that churches and private organizations offered waves of real, undiluted Christmas displays as far as the eye can see and that states fled the generic holiday decorations business altogether. Don’t deck the city halls, people. Is anyone out there writing anything about that option?

But let’s return to “Jaws: The Christmas special.”

State officials say that after a lawsuit a couple of years ago to allow the Nativity scene, they cannot discriminate among holiday displays. …

Washington’s Capitol has been in the national spotlight for more than a week. Thousands of people from across the country have called the governor’s office over the state’s decision to allow the atheist sign next to the Nativity scene on the Statehouse’s third floor. A large evergreen “Holiday Tree” surrounded by gifts has been erected in the Capitol rotunda each December for decades.

The atheist sign was stolen last week, recovered hours later by state police, and reinstalled in its display case. Since then, religious groups have added signs critical of atheism. State officials ordered the displays roped off to protect them. Security cameras and a state trooper now watch over the competing displays.

Wait! Here comes the Flying Spaghetti Monster lawyers! And what about Festivus?

Actually, this is a pretty solid story. Trust me, I really feel for reporters that have to cover this. I know that it’s hard to offer the facts about the law in this kind of church-state circus. Meanwhile, please help me keep an eye open for the more serious follow-up reports. Sad to say, but this is a real story. Tragic, even.

Page Icon Posted at 10:05 pm | Print Print | Permalink | Trackback | Comments (7)
divider

7 Responses to “Jaws: The Christmas special

  1. Perpetua says:

    I feel so embarrassed that I couldn’t stop laughing, because I agree with you. This is tragic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. MattK says:

    I love Festivus. I even have a pole.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  3. Bern says:

    “Holy cow” is right. :-) And I agree: NO religious (or anti-religious) decorations, signs, statements, statues, at government property sites during the holidays. Twinkly lights are OK: it’s dark in the Northern Hemisphere this time of year, and we could all use some cheering up—although they can’t be hung on evergreens because that implies an endorsement of paganism (originally).

    And churches and religious folks: go for broke on your properties, or not, as the spirit moves you.

    BTW I was dismayed that the link listed actually went to the Phelps site. A story about them, OK, but I regret inadvertently adding to this hate group’s click count.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. Brian Walden says:

    I think with a little common sense we can still allow for a pluralism of religious displays. Here’s a few simple rules that might work:

    1) Make it clear that the purpose of the displays on government property is for celebrating holidays. Welcome groups to submit a display for a holiday they are celebrating, but not any time of year or to compete with other groups’ holidays.

    2) The purpose of displays is not to provide free government billboard space. Allow displays (Nativities, Menorah’s, festivus poles, etc.), don’t allow signs.

    3) Don’t put stuff from different groups right next to each other like they did in Washington. That just encourages childlike behavior. If there are multiple displays - put them in different areas that still have equal prominence.

    4) If we can’t act like adults, go Molly’s route and have no displays on government property.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  5. Dave says:

    The Phelps clan and the Christmas wars were bound to come together. I pity the journalists who have to cover it, unless they enjoy train wrecks, and I agree that no religious displays belong on government property (the position, incidentally, of the ACLU and Americans United.)

    BTW it took the new GR site three days to find its way to my computer but I’m ba-a-a-ack. I like the new site; my Internet Explorer now covers the graphics with the text instead of the other way around.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Confession of a Christmas Junkie « Mind, Soul, and Body says:

    […] Nevertheless, nothing at all in the spirit of Christmas should ever lead to the type of vitriolic displays seen here in the so-called “Christmas Wars”.  These exchanges have a way of escalating beyond […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. My Top 5 All Time Christmas Movies « Mind, Soul, and Body says:

    […] This was true in the 60s and is more true today.  In fact, when it flares and escalates it gets downright ugly and out of control on both sides.   What Charles Shultz did with this Christmas special was manage with wit and wisdom to […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0